Gord, that baggage car 9166, was used as an Iron Lung car back in the day and that is why it had the electrical equipment. It was also used on many excursions with 6167.

As for 6218's stack, there is a plate inside the stack about 3" deep. Not sure if it was originally welded in place, or just siliconed, but at any rate it leaks like crazy, and the recessed design specifically allows water to pool in, and of course leak into the smokebox. Compare this to 6167 which has a sheet of copper that was formed over the stack. Not only is it quite strong, but it kept 6167's smokebox perfectly dry.

6218's smokebox on the other hand is a horror show. When I visited her in 2007, I was able to fit the lens of my camera into the hole in the smokebox door, and the corrosion damage is extensive! I wouldn't be surprised if this has affected the structural integrity of the bottom of the smokebox, where it is bolted to the cylinder saddle, which would possibly rule out lifting it via the smokebox (the traditional way of lifting a locomotive in the backshop, and how we lifted 6167 back in 2009), should someone need to move her.

As an added bonus, I wonder if water entering the smokebox may have also been able to find its way to the cylinders. At any rate, all of the plugs and other fittings on top of the cylinder block have been removed, so it is likely that water has been getting into the valves and pistons as well.

Yes, the original caretakers did attempt to weld the hole in the smokebox front closed, but obviously never bothered to figure out how water was entering, and sure enough all that water just rusted right through again.

A helpful note in dating 6218 excursion pics is that for a short period, the engine's handrails running horizontally across the boiler were painted white which was not done on most CN power during the steam era. This happened around 1965/66 and I'm sure the fans howled. Spadina did typically paint the handrails in front many locos white in the later years of regular steam.

CNR Maintenance Regulations from back in the day specifically call for the front handrails on passenger engines to be painted white! The problem is when they start painting ALL the handrails and brake hoses white, along with red accents all over the place...

Some history on 6167's tubes. At the end of steam (1959) she was scheduled to be retubed on Oct. 1, 1962, and when the Upper Canada Railway Society went looking for an engine, CN gave them a choice of three Northers stored at the Mimico Roundhouse, 6167, 6178 and 6245 I think. Of the three I see that 6167 had the lowest mileage, though 6245's tubes were good 'till January 16, 1963.

Anyhow, I also have some CN documents talking about the inspection of 6167's boiler in September 1962 (just ahead of the deadline) and how they discovered pitting in the tubes and firebox, as well as some leaking superheater units, along with a water treatment program intended to prolong her service life. (I wonder if her infrequent use during those years exacerbated the pitting problem). Anyhow, CN was able to get two one-year extensions on her tube time and that is why she ran until September of 1964, when those extensions finally ran out.

As for the cost of retubing the engine, what I don't get is CN pretty much had to perform a complete overhaul of 6218 at the Stratford shops, so are you telling me, performing that overhaul would cost LESS than putting in new tubes in 6167? I'm pretty sure 6218 got all new tubes as part of the process... WEIRD.

Yes it works. I'll leave it to more knowledgeable on the topic than me to appraise the contents, but I like the way they framed your "unsolicited" advice, I think it drove home the fact that the locomotive needs stabilization but isn't hopeless. The mere fact that they paid for a consultant would seem on the face of it to be positive.

Richard Glueck

Post subject: Re: Former CNR 6218

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:33 am

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:26 amPosts: 3748Location: Maine

Transparency - My unsolicited advice mirrored a great deal of the recommendation offered by the group assessing the 6218 and the caboose. The company that made the recommendations showed insight and a practical, intelligent approach to bring her back from her deteriorating condition. They deserve major credit for their report. It's up to Fort Erie to take action and use this plan to saved a great locomotive.

FWIW, I think the caboose is in salvageable shape, whereas the "pros" do not. 6218 is not a total loss, but requires some realistic, funded attention. The addition of a roofed weather shed and dusk to dawn lighting, along with a fence, would be the beginning. Capping the stack is absolute. Replacing the heavy steel face of the rusted out smokebox areas should be done by a professional welder, and not by "Bunky's Auto Radiator & Tire" company. All moving or once moving faces and parts should be regularly greased and oiled. Paint isn't good everywhere, but it's better than open exposure.

Lots of cosmetic repairs are required, but maintaining the integrity of the locomotive as it was in service is critical.

That would make sense as there were quite a few MLW S-2's assigned to Spadina.

Gord M

Post subject: Re: Former CNR 6218

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:33 am

Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:51 pmPosts: 82

Joe, I can't confirm the 10K figure for the 6167 retube is accurate but that was the reported figure in Railroad Magazine at the time by Ed Emery who was trying to get fans to fund the work. I recall an Emery working at Spadina at that time, not sure if they were related.

Gord M

Post subject: Re: Former CNR 6218

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:50 am

Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:51 pmPosts: 82

I wonder if the choice of 6218 was done as it was more of a "local" (to Montreal and Toronto) engine than 6167 which was transferred from Eastern Canada service to Mimico right at the end of steam? There were fans inside CN and some of the groups had very good connections with CN. There are still a couple of early UCRS members with us who would have answers on this.

Part of the welcoming of fans to Spadina may also have been the fact that CN was a Crown Corporation at that time. Being subsidized by taxpayers, it had to be more accountable and accommodating to the public it was mandated to serve. Regardless, fans were welcome and could wander around unescorted. The foreman would ask if you'd been there before and if you had, they'd warn you to be careful and you had the run of the place and it was a busy shop. The only change to this in later years was that they gave you a hard hat and safety glasses.

Gord M

Post subject: Re: Former CNR 6218

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:03 pm

Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:51 pmPosts: 82

Howard P. wrote:

4th and 6th from left. Round-roof, end-cab Alco switchers. MLW RS-18's, too. There were a lot of 8500 (S-13's from memory) series MLW switchers assigned to Spadina to do the large amount of passenger switching required between Union Station and Spadina Coach Yard, just west of the roundhouse. At that time, road power traveled light to and from the station and MLW switchers shunted the consists. The older MLW switchers were used to service numerous area industries and freight sheds which with a few exceptions, are long gone.

Visitors to the roundhouse might recall the steam-powered crane with clamshell bucket that was fired up to fill the tenders of excursion engines from the coal pile beside the ready tracks. This crane was in steam until 6218 was retired in 1971. I don't know if it was ever used after that, in any case, 6060 replaced 6218 in 1973 and it was an oil burner.

Howard P.

Old Smokey

Post subject: Re: Former CNR 6218

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:21 pm

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:58 pmPosts: 38

This thread just gets better and better

Forgotten about 6060. Never did see her run in Ontario.

First met "Betty" many years ago at Steam Expo out here in Vancouver.

This is a shot at the BC Rail...North Vancouver shops...where 6060 was having a few "minor issues" resolved before the return trip back to Alberta.

A book could be written about what happened after that...as the video doesn't do it justice... but I digress.

O.S.

Attachments:

CN 6060 North Van.jpg [ 141.08 KiB | Viewed 422 times ]

Old Smokey

Post subject: Re: Former CNR 6218

Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:23 pm

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:58 pmPosts: 38

Richard, That's a good report on 6218 you submitted. Very thorough....yet concise.

Three things resonated.

1) The importance of a simple shelter, basic fencing, and lighting,

2) The need for community involvement

3) And a well thought out plan implemented...... by a competent professional.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum